AuthorTopic: PT 48 Section 1/LR/#24 (Read 747 times)

"Journalist: Although a recent poll found that more than half of all eligible voters support the idea of a political party whose primary concern is education, only 26 percent...."

Answer: E. Some of the eligible voters who would donate money to an education party might not be prepared to join such a party

Can somebody explain how the answer choice is something the argument fails to consider? Wouldn't this strengthen the argument that the education party would not meet the 30 percent requirement mentioned in the argument?

Edit:

Another question on PT 48....Section 4/#17

A large amount of rainfall in April and May typically leads to an increase in the mosquito population....

(C) ignores the possibility that a certain type of outcome is dependent on more than one factor(D) takes for granted that a threat that is aggravated by certain factors could not occur in the absence of those factors

Why is D wrong? The argument seems to suggest that encephalitis must depend on a large amount of rainfall, and since we can't prevent this from happening we cannot decrease the threat of encephalitis.

Section 1/#24: The speaker assumes that there is complete overlap between those who would like to join the party and those who would be willing to donate to it. In other words, if all 16 percent who were willing to donate to the party were among the 26 percent who would like to join it, the total percentage in support would be 26. To illustrate the validity of choice E, try some simple numbers:100 people26 would join (in total)16 would donate (in total)5 would both join and donate

Subtracting the 5 people who overlap both categories from the total of both categories (42), we have 37 people in total who would support the party. In summary, choice E points out that the 30-percent requirement could still be met with the percentages given.

Section 4/#17: You're reversing the chain of causation. Here's how it looks according to the stimulus:large amount of rainfall (April/May) --> increase in the mosquito population --> increased risk of encephalitis

Thus, although a large amount of rainfall may be sufficient (note that the stimulus uses the qualifier "typically") to increase the risk of encephalitis, it isn't necessary for the general threat of encephalitis.

Section 1/#24: The speaker assumes that there is complete overlap between those who would like to join the party and those who would be willing to donate to it. In other words, if all 16 percent who were willing to donate to the party were among the 26 percent who would like to join it, the total percentage in support would be 26. To illustrate the validity of choice E, try some simple numbers:100 people26 would join (in total)16 would donate (in total)5 would both join and donate

Subtracting the 5 people who overlap both categories from the total of both categories (42), we have 37 people in total who would support the party. In summary, choice E points out that the 30-percent requirement could still be met with the percentages given.

Section 4/#17: You're reversing the chain of causation. Here's how it looks according to the stimulus:large amount of rainfall (April/May) --> increase in the mosquito population --> increased risk of encephalitis

Thus, although a large amount of rainfall may be sufficient (note that the stimulus uses the qualifier "typically") to increase the risk of encephalitis, it isn't necessary for the general threat of encephalitis.